Developing EPA carbon regulations could shutdown most U.S. Coal Power possibly within 25 years. A previous Part 2 Post describes how 80% of Coal Power could be feasibly replaced by expanding Wind+Solar Power up to a 30% penetration level by 2040. This would require installing 700% greater new Wind+Solar Power capacity than currently exists and almost a 50% increase in Nuclear Power capacity 2013-2040. Replacing most Coal Power with variable Wind+Solar will require maintaining adequate reserve or backup power capacity needed to reliably operate all Power Grids. Total new Power capacity capital costs are estimated at $2.9 Trillion, which could effectively double future Consumer power costs compared to EIA AEO 2013 projections.

Replacing 80% of Coal Power with Wind+Solar and Nuclear Power should reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1.6 Billion metric tons per year or by 28% of total projected U.S. carbon emissions in 2040. Achieving this carbon reduction will not only require a huge expansion of zero carbon power generation technologies, but will also require significant trade-offs. Required trade-offs to facilitate rapidly shutting down most Coal Power will include significant impacts on many local and regional environments, and possibly major changes to current new facility permitting processes. This Part 3 Post will cover these more significant impacts of shutting down most U.S. Coal Power by 2040.

Brief Review of the AEA 40% RE in 2040 –The Part 2 Post summarized a cost effective solution to reducing 80% of Coal Power generation compared to the AEO 2013 (Reference case) projection; 2015-2040. This ‘Alternative Energy Analysis’ (AEA) was designed to reduce Coal Power by primarily expanding Renewable Wind+Solar Power. Increasing Wind+Solar Power up to a 30% net generation penetration level, in addition to the AEO 2013 original projections to increase all other Renewable Power sources (biomass, geothermal, bio-waste and hydropower) by 10%, would increase total ‘Renewable Electricity’ (RE) up to 40% by 2040. Since Wind+Solar growth was limited to a relatively aggressive level of 8% per year, the balance of required power generation created by shutting down Coal Power (and not met by expanded Wind+Solar) was supplied by new expanded Nuclear Power Generation. The AEO 2013 power capacity and generation mix is compared to the AEA 40% RE case study in the following data table.

Table 1 – AEO 2013 and AEA 40% RE in 2040

Data Source: EIA AEO 2013 and Impacts of Shutting Down Most Coal Power-Part 2 final analysis.

To reduce current Coal Power net generation by 80% from current (2013) levels requires increasing Wind+Solar and Nuclear Power capacities by 386 GW and 38 GW respectively above the EIA AEO 2013 projections. Note that all other Power capacities and net generation(s) are held constant between the AEO 2013 and AEA 40% RE in 2040 case study.

Projected Electric Power Reserves – One of the most critical components for feasibly developing a proper power generation mix necessary for ensuring future Power Grids’ reliabilities is providing adequate ‘reserve’ or backup power. Required levels of ‘net’ reserve power vary by region and season of the year. This factor is most often discounted or ignored in many studies or theoretical proposals that advocate substantially greater Wind+Solar Power above the 30% penetration level developed in the AEA 40% RE case study. To illustrate, refer to the following data table.

Table 2 – AEO 2013 for 2015&2040, and NREL 80% & AEA 40% RE in 2040

Data Source: EIA AEO 2013 and Impacts of Shutting Down Most Coal Power-Part 2 final analysis. Note: all TWh data are based on ‘net generation’. ‘Gross Reserve’ power capacity (%) is based on EIA average capacity factors.

The AEO 2013 projects that ‘gross’ power reserves will decrease from 71% to 50% 2015-2040. Note: ‘gross’ power reserves are typically at least twice the level of actual ‘net’ power reserves on-line/available to stabilize and ensure Power Grids’ reliabilities. Off-line power capacity is due to routine shutdowns required for maintenance and upgrades/renovations. This AEO 2013 projected reduction in estimated gross reserve power assumes a large amount of current excess reserve capacity is either switched to baseload service or is shutdown by 2040.

Both the NREL 80% RE and AEA 40% RE assume that new Wind+Solar capacity will be located in more cost effective and optimal locations around the U.S. to maximize capacity factors, and are connected into existing Power Grids at the most efficient system integration locations. The AEA 40% RE case study assumes a significantly more conservative level of reserve/backup power capacity needed for reliably increasing variable Wind+Solar Power than the NREL 80% RE report.

Maximizing Wind and Solar Power Capacity Factors – To maximize Wind and Solar capacity factors and minimize ‘net generation’ capital costs requires locating these variable power sources in the most ideal locations around the country. In the case of wind this generally means locating the new Wind Farms along the Coasts and Great Lakes, and within the Mid-continent. Refer to the following map.

Coastal Wind Power capacity factors approach 40-50% levels compared to the ideal Mid-continent locations that average 30-35% maximum. The less ideal locations (Mid-west/east) will have Wind capacity factors at significantly lower (5-10% +/- absolute) levels. Many major cities or populations centers with high electric power demands are fortunately located in many of the Coastal areas more ideally suited for new/most efficient Wind Power capacity. The Mid-continent is somewhat less ideal due to lower wind intensities and generally lower population/consumer densities in this part of the country.

Similar to Wind Power, new Solar Power can and should be built in the more ideal locations around the country. Refer to the following map.

The most optimal locations for Solar Power are in the Southwest and generally the Southern U.S. This factor does create some synergies with Wind Power, particularly in the Northern and Northeast regions of the U.S. Northeast Solar Power average capacity factors are about 10% vs. average maximum Solar capacity factors up to 25% in the Southwest regions. Northeast Coastal regions are more ideally suited for Wind Power with capacity factors >35%.

To maximize both Wind and Solar Power capacity factors and minimize capital costs will require locating and building large Wind Farms and (centralized) Solar Power facilities in the most ideal locations around the country. This will require numerous trade-offs in properly locating new Wind/Solar in areas that could be strongly opposed by the NIMBY crowd and many other special interest groups. Optimal new Wind/Solar Power will also require construction of many thousands of miles of new high voltage ‘power transmission’ lines in order to optimize the connections into existing Power Grids. This is required to efficiently manage Power Grid supply-demand balances and the associated ‘power distribution’ systems. Besides optimizing variable Wind/Solar Power Grid installations locations and connection points, the level and availability of required reserve power plants is another design requirement to maximizing systems’ efficiencies and minimizing transportation & distribution (T&D) lines/system power losses.

Impacts of Smart Grids and Demand Response – Some of the primary reasons why the NREL 80% RE report assumed that power reserves could be substantially reduced (35% vs. AEO 2013 50%) is due to the assumption that advancements in ‘Smart Grids’ and customer ‘Demand Response’ could feasibly enable cutting the level of required backup power for expanded variable Wind+Solar Power generation. While this assumption is directionally feasible, the NREL level of reducing required gross power reserves is highly questionable and could put Power Grid reliabilities at significant risk.

All Power Grids are designed to balance and manage/control power generation/supply with demand. Basic power system controls were designed to protect generation equipment (from mechanical failure) ‘first’ and supply consumer (uninterruptable) demand ‘second’. Overtime Power Grids’ control technologies and reliabilities have improved substantially. Today, the number of major power failures is relatively small, and most often due to weather related mechanical failures of T&D power line/infrastructures. In recent years Power Grid management-controls advancements/upgrades are often referred to as ‘Smart Grids’. As the level of variable, non-dispatchable Wind+Solar power increases, the current Smart Grid advanced controls must be further and significantly upgraded to maintain the current level of Power Grid operating reliabilities.

Centralize Smart Grids have been further upgraded to include individual customer ‘Smart meters’. Smart meters were initially designed to reduce operating costs and enable Power Companies to bill Customers actual/real-time prices vs. actual purchased/generated power costs; instead of the past estimated average costs only. The new Smart meter technology also became the basis for facilitating Customer ‘Demand Response’. Smart meters provide individual Consumers with real-time cost data so that they can more economically manage their power consumption. The problem with this Demand Response strategy is that current Customers’ active participation is almost totally voluntary and relatively small. The vast majorities of U.S. Power Grid customers have grown accustom to uninterruptable or on-demand power and may or may not significantly reduce their future power consumption during peak power-demand periods. How significant the impact of possibly doubling future power costs on total consumption is to-be-determined.

Environmental and Permitting Trade-offs for Rapidly Expanding Wind+Solar Power – To expand Wind+Solar Power up to a 30% (net generation) penetration level, and do so cost effectively, will require rapidly installing new generation facilities in the most optimal locations around the country. In the case of expanded Wind Power, a large percentage of the new generation capacity needs to be installed along most coastal regions and off shore. To truly achieve the Wind+Solar 30% penetration target by 2040 will require installing 325 GW and 110 GW of new Wind & Solar respectively (2015-2040). Based on average energy densities (Wind= 2.5 watt/meter2 & Solar= 10.0 watt/meter2) the total land required for these renewable power developments will be about 54,000 sq. miles (area greater than the state of Arkansas). This estimate excludes the required new T&D and associated infrastructures.

Another required trade-off or consequence of rapidly expanding U.S. Wind Power over the next 25 years is largely ignoring the risks to the native bird and bat populations in proximity to the new Wind Farms.

To install 435 GW of new Wind+Solar Power over the next 25 years will require substantially speeding up the current permitting processes. The 10 year permitting period required for the planned Cape Wind Nantucket Sound project must be reduced to a maximum of 1-2 years for all future on-shore Wind/Solar or off-shore Wind Power projects. The NIMBY crowd and many Environmental groups will find such a change unacceptable, but longer term delays will make the Wind+Solar Power 30% penetration level expansion by 2040 highly infeasible. The same expediting of the construction-operating permitting process needs to apply equally to all new T&D projects routings required to optimally integrate new Wind and Solar Power capacity into existing Power Grids.

Needed Government Planning and Policies to Optimize Expanding Future Renewable Power – To actually expand total U.S. Wind+Solar Power from the current 5% penetration level up to 30% in 2040 will likely require a Government policy better designed than developing random EPA emission reduction regulations, current miscellaneous State renewable portfolio standards, or possible future new carbon taxes. A more sound regulatory strategy would be to develop a reasonably feasible and more comprehensive plan for how best to retire existing Coal and eventually Natural Gas Power, or a U.S. wide future Electric Power Renewable Standard. Organizations such as the NREL have many of the needed resources to help develop a more reasonable and comprehensive future Power Mix Regulatory plan, but the leadership should probably come from a more qualified organization such as the NERC. In addition the FERC and major Power Companies should participate in the future Power Standard plan’s development. Such a new Power Standard development team should be able to establish a much more cost effective and feasible plan to reliably transition the U.S. to a lower carbon power generation future. Once developed and properly peer reviewed, the future renewable power mix plan should then serve as the basis for a much more feasible and achievable Federal Renewable Power Standard. Such a Regulatory strategy should also be approved by Congress.

Options to the AEA 40% RE Case Study – There are a number of very feasible alternatives to just rapidly expanding Wind+Solar Power and needing to compromise on the many environmental impacts. One of the more promising zero carbon technologies is Advanced Nuclear Power. Nuclear can cost effectively displace all Coal Power and a large amount of Natural Gas Power without the need for large levels of the reserve/backup power required by increasing variable Wind+Solar Power. Increased Nuclear Power will have a substantially smaller physical footprint than variable Wind+Solar, and can be installed at existing Coal Power plant locations, which should minimize the need for thousands of miles of new high voltage transmission lines. This not only substantially reduces the amount of natural lands that must be cleared for new Wind/Solar facilities and associated infrastructures, but also eliminates the risks to airborne wildlife. These Nuclear Power advantages vs. Wind/Solar could also minimize the new power plant impact concerns of the NIMBY crowd and eliminate many other environmental concerns such as the negative impacts on existing natural and pristine coastal/off-shore regions.

Local solar PV/hot-water is great and has no land/species impacts. It also has long been known able to meet all peak daytime power needs -- Lewis Group, CalTech, 2000. Present PV is ~20% efficient, delivering 200W/sq meter peak using only existing human structures. Even NY City was LIDAR surveyed and found able to meet 1/2 its peak daytime summer load with rooftop solar.

Wind is the least efficient, lowest power density source and is not truly 'renewable' because it;'s subject to climate change, as the Chinese have sadly found out in their western regions. Wind is also higher in carbon footprint for its life cycle than hydro, georthermal or nuclear. A single windmill consumes ~2000 tons of raw materials per average MW delivered. Those 2000 tons or iron ore, limestone, coal (yes coal), rock, etc. are all processed and transoorted via fossil fuels.

Thus, advocating wind power is advocating waste now and into the future, for our descendents to clean up, or just let sit around, as in Kern County here in Calf...

http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

Wind also has vast land confiscation, on the order of several acres per MW average. This includes service roads, transmission vias, as well as actual wind towers & concrete foundations. It also has species impacts, especially for birds & bats in important agricultural regions -- an estimate in the upper midwest is that crop losses due to flying predator losses to windmills will exceed the value of the power produced (AAAS Science, 2012).

This all makes sense when one considers how inefficient is the idea of using a propellor to extract energy from moving air. It's worsened by the limited dynamic range of such designs over all natural wind speeds. And it's further deprecasted by the inevitably high transmission losses to loads and the idling power consumption by windmills when winds fall below several miles per hour.

The true absurdity of wind power comes when facts are applied -- the new, 7MW peak (~2MW average) prop generator from Siemens has a 500-ton nacelle. That 500 tons could build the world's largest nuclear reactor vessel, which could produce 800 times as much power and do it 24/7 for decades. Throw in the 150-ton towers & concrete foundations for several more such windmills, and you have an entire nuclear plant taking up tens of acres rather than thousands, and producing continuous power amounting to over 100 times that of the equivalent throusands of windmills. plus backup sources.

Note too that solar PV has at least another doubling, via technology, of power per square meter and wind has none.

So, an honest broker of information on clean energy would list something like...

Local solar PV/hot water, EVs with regenerative braking (interial storage), efficient storage, some hydro & geo, and advanced nuclear. That last is necessary for more than just powering iGadgets EVs & industry. It's necessary to produce truly carbon-neutral fuels, to power desalination, and to process the materials needed to protect ocean chemistry and truly return much of the >500 billion tons of human-emitted fossil carbon to safe, deep storage. Only nuclear can do these.

Alex, agreed, Solar has a number of advantages over Wind Power, but from a total-average net generation cost (including capacity factors) Wind Power has continued to be the most dominate renewable electric power source (excluding hydropower) around most the world. Solar PV and Solar Thermal (hot water heaters) have the obvious advantage for distributed (smaller) applications vs. Wind Power. Wind Power is not cost effective for small (distributed) applications, but is most competitive in the 5+ MW (centralized) sizes. However, how successful distributed Solar PV/thermal will be compared to centralized Wind Power farms will be determined in the future. And, until a truly cost effective power storage technology is developed, both Solar and Wind Power will struggle to be cost competitive to advanced Nuclear.

John, nuclear in this country is presently constrained by permit requirements that severely limit their ability to operate at partial load. This is not the case in other countries and France and Germany have used variable nuclear to respond to demand variability as well as the loss of solar PV at night and periods of calm winds. My understanding is that there is no technical hurdle to moderating the output of domestic nukes, and suspect they simply prefer the priviledge of being the last out.

Clifford, my understanding is that conventional U.S. LWR Nuclear Power plants are designed to operate as baseload power generation capacity, which generally means operating at constant-optimal power generation levels. In the U.S. intermediate/peaking load power supply is most often supplied by Natural Gas Power plants. France, that gets up to 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Power, has definitely designed these plants to provide intermediate operating capacity. I was not aware Germany also designed more operating flexibility into the nuclear plants than a typical baseload plant. My understanding also is that advanced Nuclear Power can readily be designed similar to the apparent France design standards.

Not quite true, Clifford. The issue for Euro regions is the forcible prioritization of wind, for instance, despite that increasing costs and emissions from more constant sources that must be throttled.

For nuclear, there's no point in throttling, since there are no emissions constraints and production of nuclear power is more efficient than wind/solar generation. It's not some imagined 'conspiracy'.

The throttled systems here that make up for wind variability are gas turbines, obvioulsy increasing emissions to cater to the subsidized wind operators.

A few Springs ago, a big storm moved up the Columbia Gorge, spinning its windmills at top speed. Wind operators called the ISO and asked that it throttle baseload plants, including nuclear, so they could sell their overpriced, subsidized, fortuitous Watta. The ISO wasn't dumb and told the wind folks to feather their props.

There is no purpose for wind/solar/wave 'farms', only local solar, some hydro & geo, and nuclear are needed for thousands of years. This is gradually being recognized.

Two important issues that could be discussed more are: 1) future energy cost, and 2) what happens after we reach 30% sun & wind.

Wind enthusiasts like to point out that for new builds, wind power (in the central US) has a levelized cost which is less than that of coal and nuclear (assuming energy storage is not used/required). But 20 years later, the wind plants must be replaced, and the coal and nuclear plants continue making electricity for a low incremental cost for decades more. The initial levelized cost simply does not adequately capture the future energy cost (i.e. future costs are discounted by the LCOE equation). I prefer the fleet average electricity cost (combining old and new plants) as the best metric.

It is apparently a common belief that once solar and wind reach a tipping point, the cost will fall so low that no other technology will be able to compete, resulting conversion to all renewable power. This belief has not been supported by detailed modeling, such as that done by NREL. Typically, models that use plausible carbon taxes or renewable subsidies plus learning-curve based cost reductions do not predict high penetration of renewable energy. Instead, the models are designed assuming a mandate of 30% wind, or X amount of renewables (as is done in this article), to prevent competition from impeding renewables.

The NREL models always show increasing curtailment as renewable penetration rises (towards penetration=capacity_factor), and usually lower quality or higher cost resources are used in greater proportion too. So it seems very likely that renewable costs will rise with penetration, instead of continuing to drop. And dispatchable renewables like geothermal or biomass would be even more expensive, as they are also capital-intensive and would likely operate at reduced capacity factor.

Because natural gas plants have the lowest capital cost in the industry, they are the least impacted by operation at low capacity factor. In much of the US today, they are the most economical source of new generation. Once we have a 30% share of solar and wind on the grid, natural gas will pull even farther away from the alternatives. This is bad, since 30% non-fossil is not enough; we must keep pushing down fossil fuel use.

30% renewable in 2040 will very likely lead to 60% natural gas in 2060, and lead to high energy cost which will undermine public support for more non-fossil energy. As an alternative, a plan with 60% nuclear in 2050 would lead to low fleet-average electricity cost, and increased public support for synthetic transportation fuel (made from nuclear power, air, and water).

Nathan, we have very little experience in coping with wind technologies at the end of their useful life. To date, improvements in turbine design have motivated wind-farm upgrades. Even with turbine efficiency beginning to plateau, there remains opportunities in cost reduction. That said, we will eventually come up against the useful life of their compinents. Already wind turbines see regular maintenance and component replacement. The longest-lived components (foundatioins and towers) will likely outlive their fossil-fuel and nuclear counterparts. For these reasons I do not support your conclusions.

The natural-gas plants you mention that have lower capital costs than wind are the gas-turbine peaker plants that have horrible efficiency and are therefore evvironmentally objectionable. Combined-cycle gas plants can achieve efficience above 50% but they are expensive. We also need to come to grips with the looming NG price hikes that will accompany the operation of LNG export terminals presenty under construction with many more on track for FERC and DOE approval.

Excellent insights as always Nathan. Thankyou as well to the articles author.

Looking at Ontario's supply mix right now we are running on 60% nuclear , 27% hydro, 8% gas, 3% wind and 1% coal. That gives us an enviable emissions intensity of 58grams /kwh.

I doubt many juridictions have reduced as dramatically in 10 years. It's largely been done by bring refurbed reactors on line and judicious use of gas to replace coal. So your estimates of 60% nuclear being a good target I think is supported.

That said it appears to be clear here that wind denetration as low as 5% can be problematic and unhelpful. It's a function I think of how well the wind regime fits your demand and how compatible wind is with the other primary generators.

Wind is most productive here in spring/fall. Unfortunately these are our low demand times. It is also the time of peak hydro flows so we end up spilling more water than without wind. We spent about $2billion for only 400mwhs of storage. No net emissions gain there and a big fiscal bruise. If you want to see Niagara Falls in all it's glory chose a windy spring/fall weekend, but recognize Ontario will likely be exporting electricity at a loss to neighbours.

Recently about 1/3 of the nuclear fleet has become capable of a useful amount of ramp depth but we still see frequent nightly negative prices and exports and that maneuvering is payed for as well. Most recently the gov't allowed for the curtailment of wind by system managers, but this also requires as yet undisclosed capacity payments and we will have another 3000mw to accomodate soon. All in all it's a goofy situation with capacity payments for non-generation abounding, created by much less wind penetration than you would expect.

No surprise, the R.E. stakeholders are now calling for the public to spend ever in more storage capacity.

Nathan, as I am sure you are aware, levelized costs are generally only reasonable as budget quality estimates. Rough budget quality cost estimates are typically 50-100% less than actual completed projects. Yes, the normal equipment life’s of (conventional) coal, (CCGT) natural gas and (LWR) nuclear are at least double that of state-of-art wind turbines. Even greater natural gas/nuclear power plant equipment life’s and cost advantages apply to off-shore wind turbines, which are subjected to a more highly corrosive environment, very high maintenance costs, and another factor rarely discussed by wind advocates: significantly greater risk of damage from growingly worse hurricanes and tidal surges.

The NREL models also recently assume huge increases in power storage (theoretically displacing needed reserve/backup power), very large penetrations of 'concentrated solar power' (CSP or solar thermal) and distributed (roof top) solar PV. Based on state-of-art developments, all of these technologies are fair less cost effective to (fully dispatchable) Natural Gas Power. As I covered in my Part 1 Post expanding Natural Gas Power up to 60% is less than an optimal solution since it will lead to exceeding total U.S. domestic natural gas production and substantial increased imports. Under this scenario World natural gas market prices are very likely to skyrocket, creating huge economic problems for not only the U.S. but all other Countries around the world who must rely on natural gas to supply their lower carbon/energy needs.

Agreed, all of the factors you and I have highlighted create a strong argument to very aggressively expand Nuclear Power in future years as the more optimal and cost effective solution to reducing U.S. carbon emissions.

Just want to say something in defense of the "NIMBY crowd" frequently referred to in the article. Ontario is going through the most aggressive deployment (gov't own words) of renewables anywhere in the world. This is largely in the form of wind developments. For example Ontario added 4 times the capacity in 2013 as the whole of the U.S.

Much of the development areas is in southern Ontario around the Great Lakes ; typically relatively highly populated farm communities. The gov't chose to use very high FIT rates and streamlined approvals with no E.A.s regardless of project size or cumulative effect. The only appeal process is an Environmental Review Tribunal at your cost with the requirement to prove serious harm to human health or serious and ireversable harm to the environment. That's a very high legal hurdle.

If you find yourself now living in the midst of 150, 2.3 mw Siemens turbines, in a home unsellable, at least not at anything close to it's previous market value, I think you can be excused for suggesting there is something wrong. I can't imagine anyone not feeling that way.

Ironically around our three nuclear facilities you see the opposite phenomenon of high property values, high average income and education levels. Anybody see a message in this?

Robert, please do not misunderstand my reference to the NIMBY crowd. Questioning the construction of any facility next to or near your property is generally a right in many countries. The first concern should be properly addressing safety and health issues. In the case of wind turbines, there is a continuing debate over the health impacts of the noise, vibration, etc. Locating any Commercial or Industrial facility near private property can definitely have a negative impact on market values. That’s why the vast majority of existing and new large power plants are most often located well away or out-of-sight of concerned Residents. The problem statement in the U.S. is due to special interests taking up legal strategies, which can delay any project by multiple years. If the project is financed by private business parties, such potential long term legal/regulatory delay often kills the project (economics become unattractive to investors; often the ultimate goal of the special interests' suit).

Your comment on property values being positively impacted near Nuclear installations is very interesting.

Ontario is an interesting case study in terms of attitude towards various power planbt options. The prov. govt. committed itself to spend $1.1 billion to relocate two proposed gas peaker plants, away from 5 urban ridings they were afraid they would lose in an election.

As I pointed out earlier Bruce Nuclear has an attractive effect. It employs 4000 people in a county with a population of 65,000 so its impacts are quite noticeable. The counties own housing studies show residential demand is greatest in proximity to the plant.

To contrast that large wind development areas certainly appear to be depopulation zones with a disturbing number of uninhabited residences and negative price pressure on residential values. This isn't all that surprising as Huron County Michigan planners recognized several years back that wind development could be used to immunize ag. areas from residential pressure..

If you want an indication of what generation the Ontario public at large would choose, the Ministry of Environment just released the results from a public survey created for it's Long Term Energy Strategy, Results show the highest preference for nuclear, lowest were wind/solar installations followed by gas plants. http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ltep/

Unfortunately the gov't has already contracted or built >5000mw of wind/solar, 21 gas plants and has just cancelled the two new nuclear reactor builds that had been planned in the previous LTEP, citing low demand. Forces larger than public consent and environmental concern are unfortunately at work here.

The influence of politics over a more sound lower carbon power generation strategy is unfortunately a factor we all must deal with. Hopefully Politicians will someday realize the required and total actual tradeoffs of wind power vs. alternatives. I suspect the reason why the responsible Ontario Government Agency contracted to built the 5000+ MW based on wind/solar andthe 21 natural gas plants was due to the need to install adequate fully dispatchable peaking plants (reserve/backup power) to reliably balance regional power grid supply-demand; 24-hours/day and 365-days/year. Without the new natural gas peaking power capacity, power grid reliability could be put at significant. As you are probably aware, if they had proceeded with the completing the two new nuclear plants, the level of new required natural gas peaking power plant capacity would have been reduced nearly proportionally.

J, my AEA 40% RE (or 30% penetration of Wind+Solar) assumes insignificant (< 1%) distributed Solar Power. The primary reason is due to cost effectiveness and ability to reliably operate Power Grids. Centralized Solar Power facilities can be designed more efficiently and installed to maximize capacity factors (25% vs. 10% for average roof-top solar), which minimizes net generation costs. Distributed solar can definitely be part of the solution to reducing significant coal power, but to truly be cost effective compared to large-centralized and generally more efficient facilities will require better planning and panel/system integration designs than the current random distributed power development.

You can completely eliminate coal burning with nuclear. Why would you bother with wind/solar? Technically it makes no sense. It's basically a religious movement. Solar/Wind are 'good' in some moral sense, so we should bend over backwards and try to somehow incorporate it, even though its intermittent and uncontrollable nature make it a pain in the butt, as well as despoiling the landscape. Just say 'no'.

If you want to see in a heartbeat the problem with wind then look at this graph.

http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx

This is the output of the Bonneville Power Authority, data every 5 minutes, over a week. Check this out every week or so, and you will see that wind output varies on every time scale. Bonneville has an immense supply of hydro power, which is one of the few situations where you can balance the ever-chaning output from a wind farm. That situation applies in only a few places.

Nuclear by itself can (and will) eliminate the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation. Add in EV's and Heat Pumps, and some synthetic fuel for aircraft and fission can supply all of humanities needs for energy. Enough to bring a decent standard of living to the entire world, and protect the environment.

Steve, I have to agree with you very strongly. I get it that CO2 is bad for the atmosphere, but renewables followers go beyond simply advocating less carbon sources for electric power generation. They have a visceral, venomous hate for anything that does the job (that they claim needs to be done), if the souce of CO2 free energy is not Wind and Solar, and Hydro-Electric power (only because it is an enabler for Wind/Solar).

Environmentalists have done a 180 degree about face, they have gone so far as to resurect hydro-Electric Power from being reviled as bad for Fish and Natural rythms of rivers and water ways.

Environmentalists do no care how much is spent, they don't care whether the public is saddled with unreliable energy supply, they simply want wind and solar and that's that. Frankly the attitude and behaviour of Renewables proponents have struck me as very similar to the behaviour and attitude of a Fervent Religious Cult/sect/group.

@John,

Is there Enough Hydro-Electric generation to support Wind and Solar power with the goal of displacing 80% of Coal?

Paul, unfortunately Hydropower has been in decline since the mid 1990’s and pumped storage has been in decline since about 2000. There is nowhere near enough existing Hydropower to support a substantial expansion of Wind+Solar Power up to anywhere near a 30% penetration level in the future. The recent significant expansion of Wind+Solar has taken advantage of existing excess reserve/backup power capacity, largely from Natural Gas Power plants. At some point the combination of shutting down Coal Power and expanding variable, non-dispatchable Wind or Solar Power will use up currently available (natural gas) reserve power capacity. At that point the rate of Coal Power retirements or Wind/Solar Power expansions may have to slow down until adequate reserve power is restored.

One of the largest impacts on U.S. Hydropower generation capacity over the past 10+ years has not been due to shutting down older/smaller plants, but operating restrictions/mandates implemented to supposedly protect and help restore downstream environments. Another curious evolving political issue has been the apparent growing support for small/micro hydropower generation technologies. It will be interesting to witness how those who advocate removing dams to restore natural river ecosystems will react to those who advocate installing small hydropower generators in those same rivers that were recently restored. Small hydropower units may not present any less of a hazard to native fish than the small dams with fish ladders.

"At that point the rate of Coal Power retirements or Wind/Solar Power expansions may have to slow down until adequate reserve power is restored."

That is the situation in Northern Germany on windier days. It has to export the wind energy, at whatever price, to the Netherlands, which has a large component of gas turbines for balancing, and via an HVDC line (580 km-long, underwater, capacity, 700 MW; voltage, 900,000 V; cable resistance at 50 degrees C, 29 ohm; cable losses at rated load, 2.5%; capital cost, 600 million euro; in service 6 May 2008) from the north of the Netherlands to the south of Norway, for balancing by its hydro plants. A second HVDC line is planned.

Germany does not have enough of its own balancing capacity in the north and does not have the north-south transmission capacity (about 5-10 years behind schedule, because of NIMBY and cost; latest proposals are to bury it all!!) to send the energy south, where are some of the shutdown nuclear plants and much industries; BMW, Mercedes, Siemens.

Willem, I too have been surprised how much praise people apparently give Germany for rapidly expanding their variable wind/solar in recent years and little or no mention of the impacts on their area-neighboring countries’ who share power grids. As you are aware, without their neighboring-connected power grid partners, Germany would have to idle their wind/solar power when supply exceeds demand and would face substantial power outages when inadequate backup power supply became an in-country constraint when the sun did not shine or wind did not blow (or blew too strong). I have often wondered what the true cost and carbon impacts have been on their neighbors who must have sufficient reserve power on line (and often at low/inefficient rates), and who must possibly idle/shutdown the reserve power when regional power grid generation demand drops below minimum backup power plants feasible operating rates.

If Germany truly shuts down their nuclear power capacity, this situation could only get worse.

The Dutch did idle a brand-new, 60% efficient CCGT plant near the German border, because of influx of German energy.

The Dutch are buying this energy at low prices, after Germany has subsidized it at high prices.

The alternative for Germany is to idle its wind turbines and pay owners for the energy they could have produced, a politically unattractive situation.

Germany has built offshore wind facilities. The wind turbines are operated with diesel generators to avoid them becoming rust buckets, because the transmission to shore has not yet been constructed.

On a summer sunny day in Southern Germany, PV solar starts at about zero at 8 am, increases to about 20,000 MW at around noon and back to about zero at 4 pm. Some of the energy, subsidized at high cost, has to be exported to France at grid prices. France uses its hydro plants to balance it.

RE aficionados are crowing about how Germany produces sooooo much RE; Germany has the 2nd highest household electric rates in Europe, Denmark is still no 1, but Germany is catching up; France has near the lowest household electric rates.

Steve, agreed Nuclear can displace all Coal Power. The purpose of the AEA 40% RE analysis was to determine how to feasibly displace most Coal with Wind & Solar, and identify the impacts on future power costs, the obvious environmental impacts and Power Grid resources (reserve/backup power) required to feasibly operate with Wind+Solar Power up to a 30% (net generation penetration) level. As you clearly understand the costs, environmental and reserve power impacts are quite large. Unfortunately, new Nuclear Power faces strong opposition and may not be objectively/reasonably evaluated or considered as a more ideal alternative to coal or wind/solar.

Your Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reference is an excellent example of the actual variability of Wind Power. The data does an outstanding job of illustrating how Wind Power generation can totally disappear for any given day or two, making the availability of reserve/backup power (thermal and/or hydro) very critical to reliably meeting daily Power Grid demand levels. Fortunately the BPA has access to large amounts of hydropower/pumped storage to meet this increased demand (and do so with reduced carbon vs. thermal options) when the wind stops blowing.

You are right about nuclear facing opposition, but the comparison should be made to show how nuclear is so much better than solar and wind.

In the below article, I made a cost estimate of the NREL pipedream of bringing 20% of US energy to the East Coast from wind turbines west of Chicago. The capital cost from 2010 to 2050 is about $2 trillion.

The US-DOE is envisioning the US having at least 20% of its energy from IWTs by 2050. Most of the wind turbines would be located in the Great Plains, where are the good to excellent winds. Currently, about 90% of wind turbine capacity, generating at least 95% of wind energy, is located west of Chicago.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratories, NRELs, have proposed multiple corridors with High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC, lines from the Great Plains to the East Coast, where the people are. Those lines have much less line losses than HVDC lines, and can be buried, or on pylons, as needed, to satisfy NIMBY concerns.

The implementation of at least 20% wind energy would have major impacts on the US electric power system and would require trillions of dollars.

Wind Energy Production and Transmission: About 90% of all wind turbines are west of Chicago. Transmitting their energy from the Great Plains to the East Coast via the envisioned seven (7) HVDC lines incurs energy losses.

Energy has to be gathered from wind turbines and brought to a substations to raise its AC voltage to the AC transmission level, then it is transmitted to other substations to raise the voltage to that of the HVDC line, then the AC is converted to DC, then the DC is sent to the East Coast via the east-west HVDC lines, then to the north-south HVDC trunk lines, then the DC is converted to AC, then the voltage is stepped down to the AC transmission level, then via substations to the distribution systems.

The AC/DC units and transformers will see loads from 0% (wind-still days) to up to 90-100% (strong wind days) with an annual average of about 30% (the capacity factor), i.e., at part-load the efficiency of the AC/DC units and transformers is significantly decreased.

This means multiple AC/DC units and transformers at each end of the HVDC lines to minimize losses.

This also means the entire system has to be designed for 100% of the wind turbine capacity, but will be utilized at an annual average of only 30%, much less than the normal 60% for transmission systems.

Below is a list of assumptions to estimate the overall loss.

Average capacity factor, CF, of all wind turbines west of Chicago = 0.38

Loss due to gathering wind energy to AC lines = 1%

Loss due to step up to Great Plains AC voltage = 1%

Loss due to AC transmission to HVDC lines = 2%

Loss due to step up to HVDC voltage = 1%

Loss due to AC to DC, 2000-mile HVDC transmission, DC to AC = 14%*

Loss due to step down to East Coast AC voltage = 1%

Loss due to transmission on East Coast = 3%

Loss due to distribution to users = 4%

Total losses = 27%

* See David JC MacKay’s book “Sustainable Energy; without the hot air”, pg. 179

As a result of the above losses, the average CF of 0.38 at the wind turbine is reduced to about 0.28 at the user’s meter, for a 27% loss!!

There are additional energy and wear-and-tear losses to accommodate wind energy to the grid:

Wind Turbine Replacement Scenario: As the above NREL-envisioned IWT build-out proceeds to achieve 20% wind energy by 2052, and assuming a 20-year life, almost all of the existing 52,000 MW of IWTs would need to be refurbished or replaced during 2012 - 2032, if economically/technically viable, plus the new IWTs built during 2012 - 2032 would need to be refurbished or replaced during 2032 - 2052, etc.

Wind Turbine Capacity: Assuming a life of 20 years, onshore capacity factor of 0.30 and offshore of 0.38, energy production growth at 0.9%/yr (due to electric vehicles?), a spreadsheet-based analysis shows, it would take about 425,000 MW of IWTs, onshore and offshore, to provide about 1,170 TWh in 2052, about 20% of the total US production in that year.

Wind Turbine O & M Costs: Below URLs show 2011 estimates of US wind turbine O & M varying by region: about $26,000/MW in Texas and Southwest; about $30,000 - $32,000 in the Great Plains and Midwest; about $40,000/MW in Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, etc. Offshore would be about $50,000 - 60,000/MW.

These US costs have been steadily rising from an average of about $22,000/MW in 2008 to an average of about $31,000/MW in 2011, despite claims they would be declining by wind energy proponents.

Grid Level Costs: As RE build-outs take place, more becomes known regarding grid level costs. The below OECD study quantified the levelized costs of the grid level effects of variable energy, such as wind and solar, on the grid. It includes the costs of wind energy balancing, PLUS the costs of grid connection, reinforcement and extension, PLUS the costs of back-up (adequacy), i.e., keeping almost all EXISTING generators fueled, staffed, and in good working order to provide energy when wind energy is minimal, about 30% of the hours of the year in NE, about 10-15% of the hours of the year west of Chicago.

In the US, the costs of the 3 PLUSSES for onshore IWTs are minimal when the annual wind energy on the grid is only a few percent, because most grids have some spare capacity to absorb variable wind energy. As the wind energy percentage nears 3 - 5%, the spare capacity is used up and the costs of the 3 PLUSSES are about $7.5/MWh at 5%, about $16.30/MWh at 10%, and about 19.84/MWh at 30%. This is significantly greater than the about $5/MWh usually mentioned by IWT promoters. See page 8 of below URL. Corresponding costs for offshore wind turbine plants would be significantly greater.

These costs are a significant part of the US annual average grid price of about 5 c/kWh. Mostly, they are "socialized", i.e., charged to rate payers, not to wind turbine owners. As a result, wind turbine owners, with help of other subsidies, such as the 2.3 c/kWh production tax credit, can underbid other low-cost producers, causing them to sell less energy and become less viable over time, i.e., future investors would be less willing to invest in such producers, unless compensated with "capacity payments", that also will be charged to rate payers, not wind turbine owners.

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The 40-year cost for new, refurbished and replaced IWTs, back-up (adequacy), balancing, grid connection, grid reinforcement and extension would be about $2 TRILLION, unsubsidized, with further annual capital costs after 2052 to maintain the 425,000 MW of IWTs as an on-going energy producer.

Economic Impact of NREL Build-out: The increased capital cost of IWT build-outs, refurbishments/replacements, balancing plants and grid reorganization, and the impact of the lesser CFs and shorter lives would greatly increase the US levelized cost of energy.

If US wind energy goals were increased to 30% or even 40%, levelized costs, and various other adverse impacts, would be proportionately greater.

Unless developing nations, i.e., China, India, Brazil, etc., handicap themselves in a similar manner (which appears unlikely, based on the outcome of COP-18 in Dohu, Qatar, in 2012), the US, with a low-growth economy and huge trade and budget deficits, would be at an even relative greater economic disadvantage than at present.

Add to that situation wind energy not being anywhere nearly as effective regarding CO2 emission reduction as increased energy efficiency, one may wonder if the Western World is on the right course regarding CO2 emission reduction.

Willem, it would only seem fair to also discuss the losses associated with transmitting power from the sources you favor. By omission, are you implying zero losses between a nuke and the customer's meter? From another perspective, why do these losses matter when the power source is free and not resulting in polluting and planet-warming emissions. If it can be done affordably, and communities decide not to host wind turbines, then I'm not particularly interested in listening to them them bellyache about transmission losses.

As I'm sure you know, the variability of demand dwarfs the variability of RE sources. It is this diurnal variation that taxes the fossil and nuclear plants and the energy and wear-and-tear losses you attribute to accommodating wind energy have been going on long before wind turbines became a twinkle in the eye of any progressive thinker. Even today, accommodating wind remains child's play compared to coping with variable demand and the constant risk of one large plant tripping off.

The losses of the US grid are about 7 percent; 100 percent is generated, but 93 percent arrives at users' meters.

This is not the case with wind energy generated west of Chicago and transmitted and distributed to the East Coast, as explained in my article, which, BTW, has been reviewed, and commented on, by several PhDs with doctorates in energy systems engineering.

The losses of this NREL scheme matter, because more wind turbine capacity and transmission system build-outs are required to deliver the required energy to the user.

The wind is free, but everything else is not.

The variability of day-to-day demand is highly predictable, the variability of winds are not. Wind speeds need to be greater than 7.5 mph to turn the rotors.

That means there are many hours during the year almost no, or very little, wind energy is generated, even in Denmark, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and New England.

That means almost ALL other generators are required to be staffed, fueled, ready to operate, to provide energy to serve the demand.

Such standby service is not cheap, but wind turbine owners never see the cost, because it is "socialized", i.e., charged to rate payers, as are many other costs. As a result, wind turbine owners, and various RE shills, can crow about being soooo competitive.

In the below article is described how Germany deals with its variable wind energy in the north and its variable solar energy in the south. Germany has found it to be far from "child's play".

Germany has one of the best-built grids in Europe. If Germany has problems with its level of RE, then other nations, with less-well-built grids, such as the US, will have even greater problems, when they reach that level.

Willem, you have made a very good argument in support of a more attractive alternative to relatively costly Wind Power; Nuclear Power. And, I definitely agree that unless Developing Countries drastically change their current economic-growth strategies to substantially reduce their future consumption of fossil fuels, Developed Countries such as the U.S. will spent many $ Trillions, with relatively small impact on World total carbon emissions. (Re. a past post on this subject).